Hatfield v. Chenoweth

Indiana Court of Appeals

Hatfield v. Chenoweth

70 N.E. 166, 32 Ind. App. 554, 1904 Ind. App. LEXIS 113

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 19, 1904

DocketNo. 4,864

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 70 N.E. 166 (Hatfield v. Chenoweth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hatfield v. Chenoweth, 70 N.E. 166, 32 Ind. App. 554, 1904 Ind. App. LEXIS 113 (Ind. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Black, J.

The action of the court in overruling the motion of the appellants for a new trial is assigned as error, and under this assignment it is urged that the finding of the court was hot sustained by sufficient evidence, and that the amount of recovery was too large.

lYe can not consider these matters without the evidence. There is a typewritten bill of exceptions, which formally purports to contain all the evidence; but it appears in the bill that certain papers, said to be tax receipts, were introduced in evidence, and that they are not set out in the bill. At the place where they should have been copied into the bill there is an unsigned statement in manuscript as follows :“By agreement of parties, the following synopsis of Highland’s tax receipts is substituted for the receipts.” Then follows a typewritten page, the first item being as follows: “1891. Tax sale 1891 for $91.46.” Next follow a number of columns of figures under the headings, “Year,” “Tax,” “Delinquency,” “Total,” “Pd.,” -the amount of the column under the heading “total” being set out in figures. Next are headings as follows: “Gravel Road Tax,” “Special Assessment,” under which are a number of columns of figures under the headings, “Year,” “Amt.,” “Del.,” “Total,” “Pel.,” the amount of the column headed “total” being set out thereunder in figures.

It does not appear by whom or to whom taxes were paid. Some of the evidence befoi’e the trial court is not before this court. Tn making up or in copying the bill some of the evidence shown to have been introduced was purposely omitted. The bill contains something which was not introduced in evidence, substituted for evidence which was be[556]*556fore the trial court in making its finding. The receipts should have been set out in full as introduced in evidence. It has very often been held that where it affirmatively appears that any evidence introduced is not contained in the bill of exceptions, no question depending upon the consideration of all the evidence can be decided.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Black, J.

The action of the court in overruling the motion of the appellants for a new trial is assigned as error, and under this assignment it is urged that the finding of the court was hot sustained by sufficient evidence, and that the amount of recovery was too large.

lYe can not consider these matters without the evidence. There is a typewritten bill of exceptions, which formally purports to contain all the evidence; but it appears in the bill that certain papers, said to be tax receipts, were introduced in evidence, and that they are not set out in the bill. At the place where they should have been copied into the bill there is an unsigned statement in manuscript as follows :“By agreement of parties, the following synopsis of Highland’s tax receipts is substituted for the receipts.” Then follows a typewritten page, the first item being as follows: “1891. Tax sale 1891 for $91.46.” Next follow a number of columns of figures under the headings, “Year,” “Tax,” “Delinquency,” “Total,” “Pd.,” -the amount of the column under the heading “total” being set out in figures. Next are headings as follows: “Gravel Road Tax,” “Special Assessment,” under which are a number of columns of figures under the headings, “Year,” “Amt.,” “Del.,” “Total,” “Pel.,” the amount of the column headed “total” being set out thereunder in figures.

It does not appear by whom or to whom taxes were paid. Some of the evidence befoi’e the trial court is not before this court. Tn making up or in copying the bill some of the evidence shown to have been introduced was purposely omitted. The bill contains something which was not introduced in evidence, substituted for evidence which was be[556]*556fore the trial court in making its finding. The receipts should have been set out in full as introduced in evidence. It has very often been held that where it affirmatively appears that any evidence introduced is not contained in the bill of exceptions, no question depending upon the consideration of all the evidence can be decided.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 N.E. 166, 32 Ind. App. 554, 1904 Ind. App. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatfield-v-chenoweth-indctapp-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack